Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?

cpwill said:

Um. Yeah. It's really easy to do, in fact. It is why Iran halted progress on it's program after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and why Qaddafi gave up his WMD's altogether (and aren't we glad he did).

Click to expand...

No it isn't easy to do once someone has mastered the techniques necessary to enrich uranium. And what you say is not a fact. Qaddafi nor Iran, nor Iraq has mastered the enrichment of uranium prior to 2003. You have said in fact. I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

cpwill said:

Tell me more about your knowledge of MASINT defeat. 'Cause I think you are making crap up

Click to expand...

No I am not making crap up. That is something that you always say. I know a little about physics. That's what I studied in school. I know a little about chemistry, although I admit it's not much. No I don't know what our intelligence capabilities in Iran are. What I am sure about is that they cannot know everything that goes on in Iran. And I am fairly confident that small scale enrichment of uranium can take place undetected in a country the size of Iran.

cpwill said:

Until we bombed the facility, and they had to start over. Months/Years of work and millions/billions of dollars for them, Days/Hours of work and thousands of dollars for us.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it appears you don't know a thing about the process of enriching uranium. Do you even realize something so basic as a nuclear reactor is not needed to enrich it? Basically the uranium is mined, crushed, milled and converted into yellow cake using various chemicals. The yellow cake is then converted uranium hexafluoride by chemical reactions using nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, fluorine, etc. Once you have the uranium hexafluoride, it can be heated to form a gas. The U235, which is what you need for a fission bomb, can be separated from the U238. You don't need a nuclear reactor to do any of that. Since you like to use the phrase "in fact", IN FACT any freshman physics student knows about the cyclotron formula. Using that formula one could separate the U235 by putting the gaseous uranium hexafluoride into a magnetic field at a certain velocity. I said that because it could be done, even without centrifuges and certainly without a reactor. However one could simply run a small number centrifuges, and over many years have enough U235 for a bomb. Now what I just said is a fact. And even I, with the little knowledge of physics that I have know that. That is how common that knowledge is. Someone who is expert could do all that, undetected on a small scale.

Now it appears that you may know something about our intelligence capabilities. Perhaps you know enough to tell us how one could keep what I have said from happening on a small scale. I contributed what I know to the discussion and what I have said is hard scientific fact. It is not made up. So it's your turn to contribute to the discussion. Tell us exactly what our intelligence capabilities are, and how exactly they can keep what I described from happening on a small scale.

MildSteel said:

It appears that some feel that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by military force alone. But this is a flawed notion because it requires that such force be applied for an infinite amount of time. It will not work.

Click to expand...

The notion that Iran's nuclear program can't be stopped by military force is silly.
Our military force is completely capable of killing every single man, woman, and child within that territory.
We could even hunt down and kill every dog and cat.
We could even take it to the next level and turn their entire desert into glass.

You seem to be stuck in the mind set of nation building.
For thousands of year war has been about eliminating your enemy. It is only in recent centuries that war has become a game of internal politics and profit.

I am against any military action.
The treaty stands a reasonable chance to work if it is not sabotaged by our Right Wing fanatics and by Israel.
But do not kid yourself. The question is not whether military force can do the job. The question is in how much of that military force are we willing to apply.

Painter said:

The notion that Iran's nuclear program can't be stopped by military force is silly.
Our military force is completely capable of killing every single man, woman, and child within that territory.
We could even hunt down and kill every dog and cat.
We could even take it to the next level and turn their entire desert into glass.

You seem to be stuck in the mind set of nation building.
For thousands of year war has been about eliminating your enemy. It is only in recent centuries that war has become a game of internal politics and profit.

I am against any military action.
The treaty stands a reasonable chance to work if it is not sabotaged by our Right Wing fanatics and by Israel.
But do not kid yourself. The question is not whether military force can do the job. The question is in how much of that military force are we willing to apply.

Click to expand...

Well it is certain that we could destroy Iran to an extent that you would not recognize it. I'm not so sure that we could do it as completely as you suggest. I would still put forward that even with a very strong nuclear attack that a small enrichment facility COULD escape the obliteration and still make a bomb possible. The chances would be small, but it would be possible. As such, I don't think what you have proposed is even theoretically an absolute guarantee.

I thought it would be interesting to take a stab at calculating how many nukes you would need to totally destroy Iran. I looked it up and Iran is approximately 640000 square miles in area. That is equivalent to a square that has 800x800 as its dimensions. Let's assume that with a powerful nuke you could totally destroy an area with an eight mile radius. That means you would need 100 x 100 or 10000 powerful nukes to completely destroy Iran. I don't think we currently have that many, but I suppose we could make them.

MildSteel said:

It appears that some feel that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by military force alone. But this is a flawed notion because it requires that such force be applied for an infinite amount of time. It will not work.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? The premise behind the 'force option' is that by launching an attack that is sufficiently effective you will destroy the bulk of the progress Iran has made with the destruction of years of effort, billions of dollars, and the like. In doing so you make the cost of reconstruction under the likely possibility of bombardment untenable or impossible. Furthermore once you destroy the nuclear infrastructure it isn't as though it just pops up again you have to start from the beginning and this puts you in an advantageous position if you've already committed to a military option of destroying nascent facilities instead of a well developed and dispersed program.

MildSteel said:

I thought it would be interesting to take a stab at calculating how many nukes you would need to totally destroy Iran. I looked it up and Iran is approximately 640000 square miles in area. That is equivalent to a square that has 800x800 as its dimensions. Let's assume that with a powerful nuke you could totally destroy an area with an eight mile radius. That means you would need 100 x 100 or 10000 powerful nukes to completely destroy Iran. I don't think we currently have that many, but I suppose we could make them.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone do this? Furthermore 'totally destroy' a country with nuclear weapons doesn't usually refer to atomizing every square inch of territory.

MildSteel said:

It appears that some feel that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by military force alone. But this is a flawed notion because it requires that such force be applied for an infinite amount of time. It will not work.

Click to expand...

It can be stopped by force, but it would require an invasion to secure the sites and topple the regime. I don't buy the infinite amount of time thing, there is a known opposition against the current regime and Iran is more politically sophisticated than Iraq was with fewer internal divisions.

The whole point of the negotiations now are to avert this, however. It seems to me that it's worth the effort, so long as we don't sell the farm to get a bum deal. I don't like that the negotiations thus far have succeeded only in giving Iran more time to develop etc. The negotiations have missed nearly ever deadline.

Like I said, it appears you don't know a thing about the process of enriching uranium. Do you even realize something so basic as a nuclear reactor is not needed to enrich it? Basically the uranium is mined, crushed, milled and converted into yellow cake using various chemicals. The yellow cake is then converted uranium hexafluoride by chemical reactions using nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, fluorine, etc. Once you have the uranium hexafluoride, it can be heated to form a gas. The U235, which is what you need for a fission bomb, can be separated from the U238. You don't need a nuclear reactor to do any of that. Since you like to use the phrase "in fact", IN FACT any freshman physics student knows about the cyclotron formula. Using that formula one could separate the U235 by putting the gaseous uranium hexafluoride into a magnetic field at a certain velocity. I said that because it could be done, even without centrifuges and certainly without a reactor. However one could simply run a small number centrifuges, and over many years have enough U235 for a bomb. Now what I just said is a fact. And even I, with the little knowledge of physics that I have know that. That is how common that knowledge is. Someone who is expert could do all that, undetected on a small scale.

Click to expand...

Which is an insanely ineffective way to yield the amount of uranium needed for a nuclear weapons program with a useful delivery schedule. We aren't overly concerned that Iran is going to build a calutron bomb program. It also isn't an 'invisible' program.

Sherman123 said:

What do you mean? The premise behind the 'force option' is that by launching an attack that is sufficiently effective you will destroy the bulk of the progress Iran has made with the destruction of years of effort, billions of dollars, and the like. In doing so you make the cost of reconstruction under the likely possibility of bombardment untenable or impossible. Furthermore once you destroy the nuclear infrastructure it isn't as though it just pops up again you have to start from the beginning and this puts you in an advantageous position if you've already committed to a military option of destroying nascent facilities instead of a well developed and dispersed program.

Click to expand...

A few points

1. You assertion that the possibility of bombardment makes the cost of reconstruction untenable or impossible, is questionable. On the surface of it one can merely question your assessment of impossible. I doubt seriously that you could demonstrate the the mere possibility of bombardment would make it impossible. Now untenable, that is debatable as it is possible that it could be tenable.

2. You have casually brushed aside that even if you destroy the infrastructure, it can be rebuilt if one knows how. And Iran knows how. You can't bomb knowledge.

3. You do not account for the possibility that it is possible to carry on a program that was not detected by an attack.

Sherman123 said:

Why would anyone do this? Furthermore 'totally destroy' a country with nuclear weapons doesn't usually refer to atomizing every square inch of territory.

Click to expand...

It was more just a knee jerk reaction to the previous proposition that the U.S. COULD destroy everything in Iran. I had been thinking a little about physics and that conditioning led me to take a stab at doing such a simple estimation. You know, make some assumptions, collect some data, and present a conclusion. That type of thing.

Your response bears witness to its effectiveness in illustrating the point that destroying everything in Iran is somewhat absurd.

That is the point.

Sherman123 said:

Which is an insanely ineffective way to yield the amount of uranium needed for a nuclear weapons program with a useful delivery schedule. We aren't overly concerned that Iran is going to build a calutron bomb program. It also isn't an 'invisible' program.

Click to expand...

It is not ineffective when one considers what its goal is. The goal would be to make a nuclear weapon that would not be detected or destroyed by the type of attack you made reference to when you made the comment on destroying infrastructure. When considered in that light, doing it in a very small way, over many years makes it effective.

MildSteel said:

A few points

1. You have said that the possibility of bombardment makes the cost of reconstruction untenable or impossible is questionable. On the surface of it one can merely question your assessment of impossible. I doubt seriously that you could demonstrate the the mere possibility of bombardment would make it impossible. Now untenable, that is debatable as it is possible that it could be tenable.

2. You have casually brushed aside that even if you destroy the infrastructure, it can be rebuilt if one knows how. And Iran knows how. You can't bomb knowledge.

3. You do not account for the possibility that it is possible to carry on a program that was not detected by an attack.

Click to expand...

1. The assertion being made is relatively simple and could almost be taken as an axiom. If you have very expensive infrastructure that took years to put into place and it is destroyed it will be extremely expensive for you to put it back together. Especially with your economy in tatters, dwindling financial reserves, and the threat of renewed bombardment.

2. Anything can be rebuilt. A dam can be rebuilt, but it is going to be an expensive and laborious process--just like it was the first time around. Except this time the economy is much more fragile and the risk of military attack is a near certainty unless it can be hidden. I'm doubtful Iran would be able to prioritize such a program under those circumstances anymore than Iraq was able to after the destruction of Osiraq.

3. Always possible but extremely difficult. If this is the only plausible route Iran has after the destruction of its facilities I think such a coalition would sleep peacefully.

spangledbanner said:

I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have. Do they?

Why can't Iran have nukes? What is the big deal? If BB was really worried about it would he want all Jews in Europe to move to Israel? I doubt it. Nobody cares about Iran getting nukes. North Korea has them. Why would Iran having them be worse than North Korea or Pakistan. Normal people do not care about this issue at all.

Click to expand...

I agree...great post.


And the reasons people care are, IMO, basically three fold.

1) Paranoia.

2) Pro-Israeli lobby groups/extremists

3) Neo cons trying to push the 'Iran is evil and must be destroyed' angle because Neo cons are always looking for new enemies to justify the massive Military Industrial Complex.

MildSteel said:

It is not ineffective when one considers what its goal is. The goal would be to make a nuclear weapon that would not be detected or destroyed by the type of attack you made reference to when you made the comment on destroying infrastructure. When considered in that light, doing it in a very small way, over many years makes it effective.

Click to expand...

So they are going to plow through another decade or more of sifting Uranium through a calutron to yield a single bomb? The last time a country build a weapon this way it was during the Manhattan Project and we built gigantic facilities to make sure we were moving at an industrial scale. Tens of thousands of acres of land were appropriated for these instruments, an entire city's worth of infrastructure to provide for the program, and the Y-12 calutron program still took more than a year to produce 50kg of enriched uranium. Not to mention the years we spent building it and the billions we spent on it. I think we can both agree that Iran doesn't have the luxury of building a city scope nuclear program.

I also wanted to make it perfectly clear. I AM NOT AT ALL SUGGESTING THAT IRAN IS ACTUALLY DOING THIS. My point is that if Iran really wanted to build a nuclear weapon, it could do so despite military action.

MildSteel said:

I also wanted to make it perfectly clear. I AM NOT AT ALL SUGGESTING THAT IRAN IS ACTUALLY DOING THIS. My point is that if Iran really wanted to build a nuclear weapon, it could do so despite military action.

Click to expand...

Acknowledged, but the physical possibility of something is not the same as whether or not it is reasonably feasible or should be realistically anticipated.

MildSteel said:

The Japanese are allowed to enrich uranium. The point is that once a nation has mastered the process it's not possible to stop them from enriching uranium if they are determined to do it.

Click to expand...

You're derailing your own thread into an attempt to support nuclear weapons for terrorist supporters.

spangledbanner said:

I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have. Do they?

Why can't Iran have nukes? What is the big deal? If BB was really worried about it would he want all Jews in Europe to move to Israel? I doubt it. Nobody cares about Iran getting nukes. North Korea has them. Why would Iran having them be worse than North Korea or Pakistan. Normal people do not care about this issue at all.

Click to expand...

In fact, the good fellows over at the Council on Foreign Relations not only see no problem with it, they see that Iran having nuclear weapons as the very thing that would bring regional security. But clearly, years of USFP are indicative that there are people's that have much to gain by a destabilised Middle East. And look around, just look at the freaking mess that exists, despite US intervention, interference, hegemony, nation building and regime change.


Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb | Foreign Affairs

Montecresto said:

In fact, the good fellows over at the Council on Foreign Relations not only see no problem with it, they see that Iran having nuclear weapons as the very thing that would bring regional security. But clearly, years of USFP are indicative that there are people's that have much to gain by a destabilised Middle East. And look around, just look at the freaking mess that exists, despite US intervention, interference, hegemony, nation building and regime change.


Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb | Foreign Affairs

Click to expand...

Coming from the person who kept telling us how everyone should let go of their nuclear weapons and how he doesn't want anyone to have them, that's quite the enthusiasm you're showing in promoting Iranian nukes. Hilarious? Perhaps. Miserably pathetic? Absolutely.

Apocalypse said:

Coming from the person who kept telling us how everyone should let go of their nuclear weapons and how he doesn't want anyone to have them, that's quite the enthusiasm you're showing in promoting Iranian nukes. Hilarious? Perhaps. Miserably pathetic? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
80 million population
1,648,195 sq km
They started their nuke program due to the Iraq War. They also sat up and took notice about Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
I am guessing here, but part of the negotiations may include security guarantees.

Apocalypse said:

Coming from the person who kept telling us how everyone should let go of their nuclear weapons and how he doesn't want anyone to have them, that's quite the enthusiasm you're showing in promoting Iranian nukes. Hilarious? Perhaps. Miserably pathetic? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

First of all, you mischaracterise my position, which has always been, everybody has them, or nobody has them, stated such repeatedly. With the caveat that nobody having them as a preference. But sense I, and most everybody else has insisted, there will be no nuclear disarmament, what does that bring us back to, hmm? Obviously, sense nobodies going to get rid of them, it may just be what Iran would consider in their interest. Never mind that I have posted multiple sources with US and Israeli intelligence declaring that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and hasn't decided to build one. Now then, care to comment on the Council on Foreign Relations position that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would bring stability to the region? Or does that so **** up your meme, that you can't address it?

Sherman123 said:

1. The assertion being made is relatively simple and could almost be taken as an axiom.

Click to expand...

No its not necessarily axiomatic.

Sherman123 said:

If you have very expensive infrastructure that took years to put into place and it is destroyed it will be extremely expensive for you to put it back together. Especially with your economy in tatters, dwindling financial reserves, and the threat of renewed bombardment.

Click to expand...

You can make it difficult. Depending on the situation if could be untenable for a short period of time. Definitely not impossible as you indicated.

Sherman123 said:

2. Anything can be rebuilt. A dam can be rebuilt, but it is going to be an expensive and laborious process--just like it was the first time around. Except this time the economy is much more fragile and the risk of military attack is a near certainty unless it can be hidden. I'm doubtful Iran would be able to prioritize such a program under those circumstances anymore than Iraq was able to after the destruction of Osiraq.

Click to expand...

You are right anything can be rebuilt and that's the point. Even when you look at it from the point of view of destroying the infrastructure as you have suggested, because it can be rebuilt, means that the problem has not been solved long term.

You are right about the fragile economy and risk of military attack though. It is not worth it to them at this time due partly to those reasons. However, if they have to be subjected to the constant destruction of their infrastructure as you have put forward, those calculations could well change.

Sherman123 said:

3. Always possible but extremely difficult. If this is the only plausible route Iran has after the destruction of its facilities I think such a coalition would sleep peacefully.

Click to expand...

If would be somewhat difficult but not extremely difficult. And for this reason, as I have pointed out, military action alone cannot stop Iran's nuclear program. Iran must be integrated into the world such that it feels no need to develop nuclear weapons.

Sherman123 said:

Acknowledged, but the physical possibility of something is not the same as whether or not it is reasonably feasible or should be realistically anticipated.

Click to expand...

That is correct. However what I put forward is reasonably feasible although I totally agree, it is not something that should be realistically anticipated at this point. The point is again, Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped by military means alone.

Sherman123 said:

So they are going to plow through another decade or more of sifting Uranium through a calutron to yield a single bomb? The last time a country build a weapon this way it was during the Manhattan Project and we built gigantic facilities to make sure we were moving at an industrial scale. Tens of thousands of acres of land were appropriated for these instruments, an entire city's worth of infrastructure to provide for the program, and the Y-12 calutron program still took more than a year to produce 50kg of enriched uranium. Not to mention the years we spent building it and the billions we spent on it. I think we can both agree that Iran doesn't have the luxury of building a city scope nuclear program.

Click to expand...

No, the point was that contrary to what someone else wanted to put forward, a nuclear reactor is not needed to separate uranium. The approach via Maxwell's equations demonstrates that. The approach via the concepts of angular momentum, centrifugal force , gravitational force, and mass as is used in a centrifuge would be the preferred method on a small scale.

American said:

You're derailing your own thread into an attempt to support nuclear weapons for terrorist supporters.

Click to expand...

No I have not derailed anything. What I have attempted to do is to demonstrate that Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped by military force alone.

The thread has not be derailed, you just need to get back on track.